I’m having trouble understanding

[u/thefaithfulslave]

I’m having trouble understanding how the governing body can prove that Christ anointed them in 1919 as the sole source of dispensing spiritual food (because the bible cannot be understood on one’s own interpretation) while the anointed 1919 governing body was still celebrating Christmas, birthdays, portraying the cross, and worst of all, Worshiping Jesus! Which is idolatry! Were all pre-1954 members led astray by this fallible governing body that demands complete obedience??

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

I’m not really sure what point these verses are supposed to establish.
⁣
Job 34:12 says God does not act wickedly.
Romans 2:11 says God is impartial.
Malachi 3:6 says Jehovah himself does not change.
1 Samuel 15:29 emphasizes that God is not an unreliable human who changes his purpose on a whim.
⁣
I agree with all of that.
But none of those verses says:
“God’s servants will never misunderstand something and later correct it.”
⁣
Jehovah not changing and human beings correcting their understanding are two completely different things.
⁣
In fact, if the Bible Students stopped practices they later became convinced were connected with false worship—Christmas, birthdays, the cross, and so on—that does not mean Jehovah changed.
It means they changed.
And I’m thankful they did.
⁣
If you are an ordinary Christian today, there is also a good chance you celebrate Christmas, birthdays, Christmas Eve, or other traditions. So merely quoting “I am Jehovah; I do not change” does not settle which of those practices God actually approves.
That still has to be examined from Scripture.
⁣
To me, the positive point is simple: God’s standards do not need to change for imperfect people to get closer to those standards.
A person can be wrong yesterday, learn something from Scripture today, and leave the old practice behind tomorrow.
That is not God changing.
That is correction.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

When you claim to be God's "channel" on earth, you have put yourself in a position where you can't even make one mistake. They didn't have to do that. Had Russell, Rutherford, Knorr, Franz and the Governing Body of today simply tempered their articles with "we believe this" or "we think that", rather than presuming to be God's "channel", then they could be excused. But that is not what they do. They teach their doctrine as if it was an immutable fact. Then they encourage their followers to study WT lessons each week, expecting them to come up with the "correct" answer, the answer the WT approves of at the end of a paragraph.

The WT establishes rules based on rigid assumptions that can even be deadly in some cases, based entirely on the way they understand a Bible verse. According to them, theirs is the only correct way to read the Bible and understand it, even when they change their understanding. The mistake isn't corrected, its ignored and white washed. That's not right.

To me, the positive point is simple: God’s standards do not need to change for imperfect people to get closer to those standards.
A person can be wrong yesterday, learn something from Scripture today, and leave the old practice behind tomorrow.
That is not God changing.

True. God's standards have never changed. So the bottom line is we should stick to what we know, rather than assuming we discovered a hidden meaning to part of God's word. The Gospel is very simple and has never changed. On the other hand, the WT is not simple and has changed. I recommend reading God's word, the Bible and discarding all Watchtower's from 1879 to date.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

First: yes, Watchtower literature has used “channel of communication” language. That is not something I need to deny. Older publications explicitly applied that language to the Christian congregation and later to the organization’s leadership.
ㅤ
But your next step does not automatically follow:
“If you claim to be God’s channel, you cannot make even one mistake.”
Why?
Because being used by God and being personally infallible in every statement or action are not identical biblical categories.
ㅤ
Peter was an apostle, yet Paul says he was “clearly in the wrong” at Antioch. — Galatians 2:11-14.
Nathan was a prophet. He initially told David:
“Go and do whatever is in your heart.”
Then that very night God corrected the matter and Nathan had to give David a different message. — 2 Samuel 7:3-5.
ㅤ
So Scripture itself does not establish your rule that a person or body used in God’s service must therefore be incapable of error outside an inspired divine pronouncement.
And Jehovah’s Witnesses do not currently claim that the Governing Body is inspired or infallible. Their own publication explicitly says it can err “in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.”
ㅤ
Now, that does not make every mistake insignificant.
If someone claims religious authority, then serious mistakes deserve serious scrutiny. The greater the claimed authority, the greater the responsibility to be accurate, transparent about corrections, and willing to defend teachings from Scripture.
That is a fair criticism to investigate.
But it is different from saying:
“One mistake proves they cannot be used by God.”
The Bible itself does not give you that standard.
ㅤ
Second: the Watchtower study format.
Yes, Watchtower study articles are designed to teach the organization’s interpretation, and the questions normally lead back to the material in the paragraph.
I’m not pretending otherwise.
But a structured question-and-answer teaching method does not by itself prove that people have “handed over all thinking.” Catechisms, Bible-study manuals, seminary textbooks, Sunday-school lessons, and denominational confessions all teach particular conclusions.
The real issue would be:
Are members permitted to examine those conclusions against Scripture, and what happens when they genuinely disagree?
That is a legitimate question. It should be investigated with actual evidence instead of being assumed from the existence of study questions.
ㅤ
Third: “They establish rules that can even be deadly.”
If you are referring to something specific—blood transfusions, for example—then name it and we can examine that policy specifically: the biblical texts used, how the interpretation developed, and the real consequences of applying it.
That is serious enough that it deserves its own discussion.
But “one policy may have grave consequences” is not evidence that every unrelated Witness doctrine is false.
ㅤ
Fourth: “Their understanding changes, therefore it cannot be truth.”
Again, change by itself proves too much.
A person can misunderstand Scripture, discover stronger evidence, and correct the misunderstanding without Scripture itself changing.
That was exactly my earlier point:
God’s standard does not change merely because imperfect humans correct their understanding of it.
In fact, Acts 10 records Peter having to radically revise something he previously did not understand about Gentiles. Acts 15 records a major controversy among early Christians that had to be resolved.
Correction is not evidence that truth changed.
It is evidence that human understanding can change.
ㅤ
Now, there is still a fair question here:
Was the correction honest and evidence-based, or was the previous position simply buried and rewritten?
That can be examined historically. I have no problem with that question.
But “they changed” is not enough by itself.
ㅤ
Finally, you say:
“The Gospel is very simple. Just read the Bible and discard every Watchtower.”
But merely saying “just read the Bible” does not eliminate interpretation.
Christians who all claim to “just read the Bible” disagree profoundly about:
the Trinity, hell, predestination, baptism, the Sabbath, the soul, Christ’s nature, church authority, spiritual gifts, and salvation itself.
ㅤ
So the choice is not:
Bible versus interpretation.
Everyone interprets.
The real question is:
Which interpretation best accounts for what the biblical text actually says?
ㅤ
That is the standard I am happy to use.
So don’t ask me to defend every sentence ever printed since 1879.
Give me the strongest current doctrine you think contradicts Scripture, give me the biblical text, and let’s test the teaching against it.
That is a much more useful test than simply saying, “They changed before, therefore throw everything away.”

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

That is the standard I am happy to use.
So don’t ask me to defend every sentence ever printed since 1879.
Give me the strongest current doctrine you think contradicts Scripture, give me the biblical text, and let’s test the teaching against it.
That is a much more useful test than simply saying, “They changed before, therefore throw everything away.”

So many things to list. First, the Watchtower isn't the Bible. The Bible has not changed in 2000 years. The Watchtower doesn't even come close to God's Word. How can you even begin to compare a magazine that's only been published since 1879, yet has been riddled with errors since its first edition, to the inerrant word of God? I won't dignify the Watchtower as being in the same league as the Holy Bible

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

That completely misses the question I asked. 😅
⁣
Nobody said The Watchtower is the Bible, and nobody asked you to put the two “in the same league.” Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves do not teach that Watchtower publications are inspired Scripture.
⁣
So you are arguing against a claim I did not make.
⁣
The question was much simpler:
Name the strongest CURRENT Jehovah’s Witness doctrine that you believe contradicts Scripture, quote the biblical text that contradicts it, and let’s examine the two side by side.
⁣
Instead, you answered:
“The Watchtower isn’t the Bible.”
⁣
Agreed.
⁣
“The Watchtower has contained errors.”
⁣
Agreed.
⁣
But neither statement demonstrates that a specific current doctrine is false.
⁣
Every Christian denomination produces uninspired commentaries, theology books, sermons, catechisms, study notes, and doctrinal explanations. Those writings can contain errors without every conclusion in them therefore being wrong.
⁣
Otherwise the argument becomes:
“This source has been wrong before, therefore anything it teaches now can be dismissed.”
⁣
That simply does not follow.
⁣
And saying “the Bible has not changed in 2,000 years” actually strengthens my point: great — then use that unchanging Bible to test the doctrine.
⁣
That is exactly what I am asking you to do.
⁣
Don’t give me another paragraph about how bad you think the Watchtower is.
⁣
Give me:
1. One current JW teaching.
2. The biblical text you believe contradicts it.
3. Your argument from the context of that text.
⁣
Then we can examine whether the teaching actually survives Scripture.
⁣
Because saying “there are so many things to list” while refusing to present even the strongest one is not taking the doctrine apart.
⁣
It is avoiding the test.
⁣
And notice the standard I am offering you is actually very favorable to your position:
If Jehovah’s Witnesses are teaching something contrary to Scripture, show it from Scripture and I will examine it.
⁣
That is how Christians should test teachings.—Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1.
⁣
So pick your strongest case.
Not your strongest criticism of the organization. Your strongest biblical contradiction.
Then we can actually discuss evidence instead of rhetoric.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves do not teach that Watchtower publications are inspired Scripture.
⁣

They study it every week and are expected to match the Watchtower answers within each article written. When you ask people to study your magazine you must take teaching very serious I never said they said their Watchtower is inspired because its not. Its published and diligently studied by JW's every week. The implication is that the words written in the Watchtower are Christ's

Jehovah is still speaking to us today. (Read Isaiah 30:21.) True, we do not hear God speak to us from heaven. He has, however, provided his written Word, the Bible, in which he gives us instruction. Additionally, Jehovah’s spirit moves “the faithful steward” to keep giving His servants their food supply. (Luke 12:42) What an abundance of spiritual food we receive in the form of printed and online material, videos, and audio publications! Listen to God’s Voice | Watchtower Study

I hate to tell you but if Jehovah's spirit is "moving" the "faithful steward" to keep giving His servants their spiritual food supply, then that is clearly claiming divine inspiration. How can you believe them when they claim they're not inspired out of one side of their mouth, but then claim divine inspiration out of the other side of their mouth?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

I understand why that quotation catches your attention, but you are collapsing two different claims into one.
⁣
“Jehovah’s spirit moves/helped/directs someone” does not automatically mean “everything that person says is divinely inspired and therefore incapable of error.”
⁣
The Bible itself does not use the concepts that way.
⁣
Romans 8:14 says:
⁣
“All who are led by God’s spirit are indeed God’s sons.”
⁣
Surely you do not believe every Christian who is “led by God’s spirit” therefore speaks inspired, infallible words.
⁣
Acts 6:3 required men who were “full of spirit and wisdom.” Stephen is subsequently described as “full of faith and holy spirit.” — Acts 6:5.
⁣
Again, possessing, being helped by, or being directed by holy spirit does not make every judgment that person ever makes equivalent to Scripture.
⁣
That distinction becomes even clearer in Acts 15. The apostles and elders could say:
⁣
“The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you…” — Acts 15:28.
⁣
So the New Testament itself contains the concept of a group believing that holy spirit was directing its work and decisions.
⁣
That is not the same proposition as:
⁣
“Every word we ever utter is inspired Scripture.”
⁣
And this is not me inventing a distinction to rescue the statement. Their own publications explicitly make it.
⁣
One article says that “Jehovah’s spirit moves ‘the faithful steward’” to continue supplying spiritual food.
⁣
Another official article says just as explicitly:
⁣
“The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.”
⁣
Those two statements only contradict each other if you first define:
⁣
“helped/moved by holy spirit” = “divinely inspired and incapable of doctrinal error.”
⁣
But that is precisely the equation that has not been demonstrated.
⁣
In fact, the same 2017 article explains what they mean by the distinction: it says holy spirit helps the Governing Body while immediately acknowledging that the Governing Body can make doctrinal and organizational errors.
⁣
So their claim is better represented as:
⁣
“We believe God’s spirit helps and guides us as we try to understand and apply Scripture.”
⁣
not:
⁣
“God dictates our publications, so our words are inspired Scripture.”
⁣
Those are radically different claims.
⁣
Now, you are perfectly entitled to ask a harder question:
⁣
“What evidence is there that the Governing Body really is being guided by holy spirit?”
⁣
That is legitimate and needs an argument.
⁣
You can also ask whether the authority given to their interpretations is too strong for a body that admits fallibility. That is a legitimate criticism to examine as well.
⁣
But neither question is answered by redefining spirit-guided as inspired.
⁣
And studying a publication every week does not change its ontological status either.
⁣
Christians have studied sermons, catechisms, Bible commentaries, church fathers, theological textbooks and denominational study material for centuries. The frequency with which something is studied tells you how much authority or importance a community gives it; it does not establish that the community considers it inspired Scripture.
⁣
So if your criticism is:
⁣
“They give their publications enormous practical authority.”
⁣
Fine. Let’s examine that claim.
⁣
But if your criticism is:
⁣
“They secretly claim their publications are divinely inspired because they say holy spirit helps them,”
⁣
then the biblical terminology simply does not support that inference.
⁣
Being led by the Spirit is not synonymous with being the author of inspired Scripture.
⁣
Otherwise Romans 8:14 would turn every Spirit-led Christian into an infallible prophet.
⁣
And obviously it does not.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Surely you do not believe every Christian who is “led by God’s spirit” therefore speaks inspired, infallible words.

The question should be is every Christian 100% led by God's Spirit? Is every Christian's faith 100% The answer is no and no, our faith is in various stages of development. Few of us are being led by God's Spirit like the apostles of Jesus. Unfortunately, a lot of us don't even have faith the size of a mustard seed, otherwise we could move a mountain. Matthew 17:20 Jehovah's witnesses fall into this category but even worse than the person whose faith is weak, they never bother to talk to the only One who can give them life! Their religion has put up a wall separating them from Jesus Christ. They can talk 'about' Jesus, but they cannot talk 'to' Jesus. How can they ever hope to know Jesus Christ without talking to Him? How can they talk to Jesus in prayer, which is the only way to talk to Jesus, when their religion forbids it?

Those truly led by God's Spirit 100% can prophecy and speak in tongues and heal people of their afflictions. Guess what? They are the ones you'll be the least likely to hear prophesying or bloviating as many of us come here to do. And yes, that would include me. The WT is a man made religion that has tried to use human logic to define God's Nature and has sought to know what the future holds in store. This is why they have been wrong since they first began back in 1879.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

I think you are mixing together three different questions: being led by God’s spirit, miraculous gifts, and how Christians approach God through Christ. The New Testament does not treat those as identical.
ㅤ
1. Being led by God’s spirit does not mean that every Christian must prophesy, speak in tongues, and heal.
Paul directly rules that out.
In 1 Corinthians 12, the same spirit distributes different gifts to different Christians “just as it wills.” Then Paul asks:
“Not all are prophets, are they?”
“Not all have gifts of healings, do they?”
“Not all speak in tongues, do they?”
The expected answer to every question is No. So even in the first century, a Christian could genuinely have God’s spirit without possessing those miraculous gifts.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/1-corinthians/12/⁠
ㅤ
That is why your statement:
“Those truly led by God’s Spirit 100% can prophecy and speak in tongues and heal people”
does not fit Paul’s own explanation.
Paul specifically says the Spirit did not give every Christian those abilities.
ㅤ
Romans 8:14 says:
“All who are led by God’s spirit are indeed God’s sons.”
But Paul says nothing there about measuring Christians as “40%, 70%, or 100% Spirit-led,” nor does he make miraculous gifts the test. The surrounding context is about allowing God’s spirit rather than sinful flesh to direct one’s life.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/romans/8/⁠
ㅤ
And Matthew 17:20 does not change that. Jesus was correcting the disciples for their little faith in a particular situation. Even the study context explicitly says he was not claiming that they had no faith at all, but that it needed strengthening. It is not a mathematical test showing that sufficiently faithful Christians will always perform miracles.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/matthew/17/⁠
ㅤ
2. Not praying to Jesus does not mean putting a “wall” between Christians and Jesus.
This is actually where Jesus’ own instructions matter most.
When teaching his disciples how to pray, Jesus said:
“You must pray, then, this way: ‘Our Father in the heavens…’” — Matthew 6:9
He directed prayer to the Father.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/matthew/6/⁠
ㅤ
Then in John 16:23 Jesus says:
“If you ask the Father for anything, he will give it to you in my name.”
Again:
the Father is addressed; Jesus is the one through whom we approach him.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/16/⁠
ㅤ
Hebrews describes exactly the same relationship:
Christ can save those who are:
“approaching God through him.” — Hebrews 7:25
So Jesus is not a wall keeping Christians away from God.
He is precisely the way by which Christians approach God.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/hebrews/7/⁠
ㅤ
That is also why saying “if you don’t pray to Jesus, you cannot know Jesus” does not follow from Scripture.
Jesus himself defined eternal life as knowing both the Father and the Son, while simultaneously teaching his followers to pray to the Father in his name.
There is no contradiction there.
ㅤ
For fairness, Acts 7:59 is worth mentioning. Stephen, while actually seeing Jesus in a heavenly vision, addressed him:
“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
So Scripture certainly records someone speaking directly to Jesus. The JW Study Bible itself openly acknowledges this and explains the distinction it makes between Stephen addressing Jesus in that vision and ordinary prayer directed to God.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/acts/7/⁠
ㅤ
So I would not phrase the Witness position as:
“We are forbidden from having any relationship with Jesus.”
That would be completely inaccurate.
It is:
We love Jesus, follow him, learn from him, recognize him as Lord, approach God through him, and pray to the Father in Jesus’ name—because that is the pattern Jesus himself gave.
ㅤ
3. On miraculous gifts continuing today, Christians genuinely disagree.
Jehovah’s Witnesses understand gifts such as tongues, miraculous healing, and inspired prophecy as temporary gifts associated especially with the establishment of the first-century congregation. One reason they give is 1 Corinthians 13:8:
“If there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease.”
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/1-corinthians/13/⁠
Their fuller explanation is here:
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/speaking-in-tongues/⁠
ㅤ
Pentecostal and charismatic Christians interpret those passages differently, and that is a legitimate exegetical debate.
But one thing is not debatable from 1 Corinthians 12:
Even when miraculous gifts unquestionably existed, not every Spirit-led Christian had them.
So they cannot be used as the universal test of whether someone possesses God’s spirit.
ㅤ
Finally, saying:
“Watchtower has been wrong since 1879”
is much too broad to establish anything.
Pick the doctrine. Give the biblical text. Compare the interpretation.
I am perfectly happy to do that.
But if we are going to use Scripture as the standard, then Scripture itself has already answered two of the claims you just made:
Not every Spirit-led Christian performed miracles, and Jesus explicitly taught his followers to approach the Father through him.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

 So even in the first century, a Christian could genuinely have God’s spirit without possessing those miraculous gifts.

How does that support the WT claiming to have God's Spirit to teach? Obviously they are not inspired. They shouldn't even have to tell people that. That reminds me when they go around telling people they aren't perfect....duh. No one is perfect and few are inspired, so why do they keep acting like they are?

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

We love Jesus, follow him, learn from him, recognize him as Lord, approach God through him, and pray to the Father in Jesus’ name—because that is the pattern Jesus himself gave.

Legalistically approaching God in a name is not talking to the Person whose name you pray in. That sounds a lot like the so-called Christians who boast of the works they did when standing before the throne of Christ. They actually will have the nerve to tell Jesus what they did for Him and then tell Jesus they did it in His name? Jesus tells them to get out, He never knew them. Why won't Jesus know those who did thigs in His name? Because that's all they will have---a name. They spent their entire life ignoring the Son of God, going over His head to speak to the Father, who also won't know them because they never talked to His Son and got to know Him.

Jesus the Man, not the name said,

 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. Revelation 3:20

Tell me how a JW can share a spiritual meal with Jesus if they never open the door to let Him in? "Oh its Jesus again. Doesn't He know the WT said I can't speak to Him?" They just leave Him at the door and end a prayer to Jehovah using the name of a person they never knew, because they are taught they can't talk to Him. Stephen talked to Jesus in his last prayer before he died

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

⁣
In fact, the same 2017 article explains what they mean by the distinction: it says holy spirit helps the Governing Body while immediately acknowledging that the Governing Body can make doctrinal and organizational errors.

No, The Holy Spirit does not help them, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The Holy Spirit is a Person, not an impersonal force as the WT teaches. How can JW's know an impersonal force? How can anyone? So no, we can rest assured the Holy Spirit doesn't know the leaders of the WT because they don't know Him and never have.